SJS v DDB (includes the petition of Pimental Jr in relation to drug testing for the 2004 elections)
CA Labitoria Gallardo
In accordance with Section 36 of RA 9165 which prescribes mandatory drug testing of candidates
for public office, COMELEC issued a Resolution prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory
drug testing of candidates in connection with the 2004 national and local elections. Aquilino Pimentel, a
senatorial candidate, sought to nullify this as being unconstitutional as it imposes a qualification for
candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution. Accordingly,
the qualifications provided for in Section 3 Article VI of the Constitution, namely that a Senatorial
candidate must be (I) a natural-born citizen of the Philippines (II) on the day of the election, he/she must
at least be 35 years old, (III) able to read and write (IV) a registered voter and (V) a must be a resident of
the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the day of the election, is exhaustive. This
means that the Congress cannot provide for more qualifications other than that provided in the
Constitution.
Issue: W/N expanding the qualifications provided in the Constitution for a Senator, such as adding the
qualification to pass the drug test, is constitutional.
Held:
No, it is unconstitutional.
Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, as sought to be implemented by the assailed COMELEC resolution,
effectively enlarges the qualification requirements enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution.
Congress' inherent legislative powers, broad as they may be, are subject to certain limitations. It cannot
disregard, evade, or weaken the force of a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the Constitution.
While RA 9165 requires that a senatorial candidate must be drug-free as a pre-condition to the
validity of a certificate of candidacy, and that the IRR of COMELEC provides that ““no person elected to
any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug test”, it
is futile to discuss whether the challenged provision is to be hurdled before or after election, since getting
elected would be of little value if one cannot assume office for non-compliance with the drug-testing
requirement.